Australian Lefty on Politics, Governance, Science and Info Management

Senate receipt times – LegCon=1 hour, ECA=4 working days

Posted by Dave Bath on 2009-01-29

It’s the sheer rudeness or gross inefficiency of not sending you a simple "Thanks, got your message, get back to you later" so at least I know they’ve got it…..

This has to be a record for a slow acknowledgement from a Senate Committee to me… sent to committee 2009-01-21 16:59, got a bcc’d impersonal acknowledgement sent by the committee 2009-01-29 10:40

So… Thu Fri (Sat Sun Mon) Tue Wed …. a little more than four full working days… that’s pretty slack of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee.

Normally, I get a “Dear Mr Bath” as a receipt, me in the address line (not in a bulk list of bcc’s), before lunchtime the next day.  The "we’ve accepted and/or published it" email very quickly… next working day.

For Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee…. hmmm, sent 2009-01-10 21:56 (Sat), received a nicely formatted name, my address, etc, etc email back 2009-01-12 10:05 (Mon)…. that’s about 1 hour of office time to say "got your email".

Top marks to Peter Hallahan, Committee Secretary, and probably the committee members… and the typist!.

LegCon also told me in that email that I’d be submission number 3, and had quite a few up and published on the senate website by close of business that day… (see towards the bottom of this post.

Why the difference?

It’s not like the ECA Committee published them before sending a confirmation email that they’d received it!  They haven’t even got the page for publishing any of them yet.

(Still can’t show my submission until it’s published by the Senate… although you’ll know my general position if you read this and related posts.)



3 Responses to “Senate receipt times – LegCon=1 hour, ECA=4 working days”

  1. Dave Bath said

    Oh, see an earlier post complaining about the lack of response: here

  2. You obviously haven’t made a submission to a Senate standing committee inquiry which had Senator Heffernan as chair. ;-)
    Then you might have been fighting a month later to have your properly worded and addressed submission included at all.

  3. Dave Bath said

    Clarencegirl: Nope. Which committee? Senate ones have been usually good for me. But I’ve struggled with tactics of Brumby’s Victoria for Water-related inquiries (see here and here – you couldn’t get an address to write into…. even when they’d promised to let you know when submissions were open… they didn’t)

    Also, there are a couple of elements, one of which should not be in the committee hands, but is purely administrative:

    (1) Sending a “we got your email, thanks” receipt. This could almost be done by a reasonably trustworthy work-experience kid.

    (2) Deciding whether the submission is “on-topic” and “polite” enough (and this got through on the Citizenship Testing Bill, even though it’s borderline inciting hate!)

    (3) Reading and reporting it correctly (as the NT Intervention committee didn’t… Senator Bartlett correctly said the committee had “verballed” most of those who wrote in, see here)

    I can understand delays at step (2), although it should only take a few seconds.

    But step 1? No excuse.

    Anyone got any hard info on the split up in duties between the pollies and the employees just doing the admin? Can the chair set a low bar for administrative efficiency and politeness, or is this something generic and apolitical, e.g. the Black Rod sets the standard?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: